CA Cooperative T/C Society Limited vs Vivek Kumar Singh & Anr

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Respondent's Arguments | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court | No clear sentiment |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Ca Cooperative T/C Society Limited vs Vivek Kumar Singh & Anr on 25 March, 2026

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th March, 2026
Uploaded on: 27th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 12/2026
CA COOPERATIVE T/C SOCIETY LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Nandini
Aggarwal, Ms. Samiksha Advs. (M:
9990166622)
versus

                              VIVEK KUMAR SINGH & ANR.                   .....Respondents
                                           Through: Mr. Apoorv Rastogi, Adv. for R-1. (M:
                                                     8800838221)
                                                     Mr. Anis Ahmad Adv. for R-2. (M:
                                                     9810965275)
                              CORAM:
                              JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                              JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
                      Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1.   This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
                      CM APPL. 18710/2026 (for exemption)

1.  Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
                     W.P.(C) 12/2026 & CM APPL. 18709/2026 (for direction)
   

2.  The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner - CA
                     Cooperative T/C Society Limited (hereinafter, the 'Society'), challenging the
                     impugned order of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, dated 3rd November,
                     2025 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') in Case No. 84/2024 & 85/2024,
                     both titled 'Vivek Kumar Singh v. CA Cooperative T/C Society Limited &
                     Anr.'
   

3.  By the said impugned order, the Financial Commissioner has remanded
   
                      the concerned case to the Registrar Co-operative Societies (hereinafter 'RCS')
                     to consider the various pleas raised by the Respondent No. 1, who had stood
                     as a surety in respect of the loan which was extended by the Society for a sum
                     of Rs.6,00,000/- to one Arpit Singh (hereinafter, 'the Principal Borrower').
                     The said loan facility was granted on 7th February, 2017.
   

4. Respondent No.1 is an employee of BSNL in Delhi. The background
                     of the case is that the Principal Borrower had not repaid the money he had
                     taken on loan, which led to the Society filing a claim before the RCS on 30th
                     June, 2018. The sum claimed by the Society was Rs.6,43,062/-.
   

5. Thereafter, an Award dated 18th July, 2019 was passed by the ld.
                     Arbitrator, by which it was held that the loan was liable to be recovered from
                     the Principal Borrower, as also the sureties, jointly and severely. The relevant
                     portion of the award is set out below:
   

"AWARD U/S 71 OF THE DELHI CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 2003

The CA Cooperative T/C Society Ltd., filed a petition
under section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies
Act, 2003 against the above mentioned defendants (No.1
to 4) for recovery of a total claim of Rs.7,92,082/- (as
per details given in the A/c's status filed on 8.07.2019).
Earlier the case was referred to the undersigned for
passing an Award under Section 71 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.

1. In exercise of the powers conferred on me as Registrar's Nominee, summonses were sent to all the parties to appear before me on 8th July, 2019 at 5.30 PM. This day Shri Masood Hussain authorized representative of claimant society was present. Defendant No.3 & 4 were also present. None present from defendant No.1 & 2. Notice to defendant No. 1 &

2 issued again for 18.07.2019 as one more opportunity.
Both of them were again absent on 18.07.2019 and
notices returned as 'left house'. Sufficient opportunity
has been given to the both of them. I have no option but
to decide the case accordingly, preceded ex-parte
against defendant No.1 & 2.

1. I have considered the full facts of the case brought out before me, after having gone through the records available and after hearing the claimant in detail I convinced with the genuineness of the claim and therefore, pass the Award as under:

4 The defendants are directed to pay jointly and
severally to CA Co-operative T&C Society Ltd.
i) Loan Balance Rs.5,93,546/-
ii) Intt. @ 18% +3% p.a. Rs.1,49,020/-
(upto 8.7.19)
iii) Arbitration Cost Rs.49,516/-
Total Rs.7,92,082/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Eighty two
only)
Further interest @ 18% + 3% p.a on the outstanding
principal amount w.e.f. 09.07.2019 till realization in full
& final of the principal sum is also allowed.
Given under my hand and seal on the 18.07.2019."

1. Respondent No.1 then filed an appeal before the DCT challenging the
                     said award dated 18th July, 2019, but no stay has been granted by the DCT
                     and the said appeal continues to be pending.
   

2. Since there was no stay granted in respect of the award dated 18th July,
                     2019, the Society approached the concerned Executing Authority for
                     attachment of the Respondent No.1's salary.
   

3. The BSNL, vide its order dated 29th October, 2021, attached the salary
                     of Respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. This attachment was
   
                      challenged by Respondent No.1. before this Court in W.P.(C) 12971/2021
                     titled [Vivek Kumar Singh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. The](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181302378/) said writ petition was disposed of by the ld. Single Judge of this Court vide
                     order dated 16th February, 2022 in the following terms:-
   

"3. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily against
an order dated October 29, 2021 issued by the
respondent No.1 directing recovery of an amount of
₹25,000/- per month till the realisation of the entire
amount in terms of the directive of Assistant Collector,
Grade-I, Cooperative Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

1. The submission of the learned counsel for the
   petitioner is primarily that a deduction from the salary
   of a government servant has to be in terms of Section
   60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure and under the
   relevant Rule 74 of CGA (R&P) Rules, 1983. In terms of
   the said provisions, the recovery could not be in the
   manner suggested by the Assistant Collector in the
   order dated December 5, 2019 read with order dated
   August 11, 2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the
   award pursuant to which execution is sought by
   respondent No.2 has not been stayed, rather it was
   rejected vide order dated December 10, 2020. He also
   states, against the order of the Assistant Collector
   seeking execution of the order, the remedy for the
   petitioner is to approach the Commissioner of the
   Cooperative Societies in appeal. He states, petitioner is
   contemplating filing an appeal before the said
   Authority.

3. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order dated
   October 29, 2021 passed by the BSNL was on the
   asking of the Assistant Collector, executing the award.
   Till such time the orders of the Assistant Collector are

varied, the BSNL is required to follow/implement the
same.

1. If the remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal
   before the Commissioner, petitioner need to be
   relegated to the Commissioner for filing an appeal. It
   is ordered accordingly.

2. It goes without saying that the Commissioner shall
   consider all the pleas raised by the petitioner in support
   of the challenge to the order of the Assistant Collector.
   Accordingly, it is directed that petitioner shall file an
   appeal within four weeks as an outer limit before the
   Commissioner and the Commissioner shall hear the
   appeal within one week thereafter and pass
   appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such
   time, the Commissioner hears the appeal filed by the
   petitioner and pass appropriate orders, the interim
   order dated November 17, 2021 to the extent that the
   Court has said that the respondent shall ensure the
   deductions from the petitioner's salary are made
   strictly in accordance with Section 60(1)(i) CPC, shall
   continue.

3. It is made clear that the Commissioner shall
   consider the appeal without being influenced by the
   order passed on November 17, 2021 and also this
   order."

4. A perusal of the above order would show that the ld. Single Judge was
   informed of the remedy of the Respondent No.1 to file an appeal before the
   Commissioner, whereas, in fact, what the Respondent No.1 wanted to do was
   to file a revision petition before the ld. Financial Commissioner against the
   order passed by the Executing Authority.

1. The Respondent No.1, on the basis of the liberty granted, filed an

                      appeal within four weeks. However, what, in fact, ought to have been filed
                     by the Respondent No.1 was the revision petition challenging the order of the
                     Executing Authority.
   

2. The Financial Commissioner converted the appeal into revision petition
   bearing No.84/2024 and 85/2024, on his own and, thereafter, disposed of the
   same vide impugned order dated 3rd November, 2025. The operative portion
   of the said order reads as under:

"28. In the light of all the above, the case is remanded
to the Ld. Registrar Cooperative Societies to consider
all the pleas raised by the Petitioner herein, the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the
Hon'ble High Court as referred above and pass a
speaking order while executing the recovery. Since the
Petitioner in this case is one of surety, the RCS may
assess efforts made by the society to recover the
amount from Principal Debtor and other sureties also.
The Ld. Registrar Cooperative Societies to also issue
advisory on the above lines within next 60 days. Till the
time such reasoned and speaking orders are passed
after hearing the Petitioner and other concerned
parties, as deemed fit, preferably within next three
months, no coercive action be taken against the
Petitioner.

1. The revision petition bearing No.84/2024 titled Vivek Kumar Singh Vs. CA Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society & Anr. and 85/2024 titled Vivek Kumar Singh Vs. CA Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs." The said order, which was passed by the ld. Financial Commissioner, is challenged before the Court.

1. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the appeal filed in 2020 against the original award
which was passed by the Arbitrator dated 18th July, 2019 is still pending for
the last six years. Even if the application for stay of the execution of the said
award was rejected, the appeal ought to have been heard by the DCT.

1. Since the Financial Commissioner's order was passed in the execution proceedings, the same would be premature at this stage, as the appeal first ought to be decided by the DCT. Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued in the matter.

(i) The appeal filed against the award dated 18th July, 2019 before the
DCT shall be decided on or before 31st July, 2026;

(ii) Depending upon the order passed by the DCT, the Society is
permitted to pursue the execution proceedings in accordance with
law;

(iii) The order of the Financial Commissioner dated 3rd November, 2025
is set aside;

(iv) All rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be urged
before the DCT.
15. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has also informed the Court that
out of the initial loan amount, the amount of Rs.6.50 lakh has already been
recovered by the Society, which is disputed by ld. Counsel for the Society.

1. DCT shall take into consideration, the amount already recovered by the
   Society and the liability to be affixed, if any, upon the sureties, qua any of the
   dues. The DCT shall also take into consideration the bye-laws of the Society
   while deciding the appeal.

2. Before the DCT, the parties are permitted to urge all grounds by either
   filing written submissions and further documents. In respect of this very

                      award, this Court has already dealt with in W.P.(C) 7127/2025 titled [Manoj
                     Singh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38609803/), wherein also the Court had
                     directed the appeal before the DCT to be decided. Accordingly, the appeal
                     shall be decided comprehensively.
   

3. Mr. Anish Ahmad, ld. Counsel who is appearing for the BSNL submits
   that his appearance has been left out inadvertently on previous dates of
   hearing on 5th February, 2026 and 9th February, 2026. Accordingly, the
   appearance of Mr. Anish Ahmad, ld. Counsel for BSNL is taken on record.

4. Needless to add, the DCT shall not be bound by any observations made
   in this order.

5. The present petition, along with pending applications is disposed of in
   the above terms.

6. The date already fixed i.e. 16th April, 2026, stands cancelled.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE

                                                                              MADHU JAIN
                                                                                JUDGE
                      MARCH 25, 2026/dk/mr/ss